Evaluation

The EC has evaluated this project and rated it "excellent". An extract of the EC letter is available here
(PDF 330KB)

The conference was also evaluated internally - Download the PDF version of the evaluation (608 KB)

1. BACKGROUND

This report is the synthesis of the evaluation forms provided by 70 of the 125 participants to the conference Pharmacrime 2010 that took place in Brussels from 27th to the 29th September 2010. 63 of the respondents attended the conference for 3 days, 5 for 2 days and 2 for only one day. They cover 29 of the 32 countries represented at the conference and 4 international organisations. The high rate of answer is an indication that the feedback is representative of all the participants of the Conference.

 

2. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED

2.1. General

 

The results show that the participants appreciated particularly the organization and logistics of the conference and the opportunity for networking.

 

Please rate the following:	Number of answers	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Conference contents /presentations	69	39%	58%	3%	0%
Opportunities for networking and contacts	70	57%	43%	0%	0%
Organisation/administration of the conference	70	69%	29%	3%	0%
Catering (food/ coffee break)	67	42%	46%	12%	0%

 

 

2.1. Content

 

In terms of content of the conference the satisfaction is high as shown in the table below:

 

Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements:	Number of answers	To a high extent	To some extent	To a limited extent	Not at all	Don’t know
The issues addressed by the conference were interesting	68	71%	26%	3%	0%	0%
The speakers and presentations were interesting	69	51%	45%	4%	0%	0%
There was sufficient time for exchange among partners	66	56%	35%	8%	0%	2%

 

Several respondents mention that there were too many presentations per day. Other remarks regarding the content and program of the conference were as follows:

• Turkey should be invited (note: it was invited but did not answer);
• The conference should be enlarged beyond EU MS, and should involve other Pharmaceutical companies and consumers;
• The number of presentations could be reduced;
• Some presentations concerning investigations methodologies and techniques could be extended;
• Chairs should prompt questions;
• The native EN speakers should be asked to speak clearer.
  

 

2.3 Results

 

Networking, information and best practices exchange have been mentioned by the majority of the participants as most important results. The main achievement of the conference as assessed by the participants is the likeliness of increase of the cross-border cooperation, especially in terms of sharing information and joint operations. It might also impact the efficiency of the fight against counterfeit medicine business through changes or harmonization in the investigation methods.

 

In your opinion to what extent did the conference achieved/is likely to achieve the following results?	Nbr of answers	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know
The conference is likely to contribute to changes in investigations methods against counterfeit medicines	68	19%	66%	13%	1%	0%	0%
The conference is likely to contribute to harmonisation of investigation methods against counterfeit medicines	68	22%	56%	22%	0%	0%	0%
The conference is likely to contribute to increased cross border cooperation in the area of intelligence/information sharing related to investigations on counterfeit medicines	68	38%	53%	7%	0%	1%	0%
The conference is likely to contribute to increased cross border cooperation, in area of join operations against counterfeit medicines	69	32%	51%	16%	0%	0%	1%
The conference is likely to facilitate the implementation of an EU Pharmacrime package	69	14%	41%	33%	6%	4%	1%
The Conference is likely to contribute to the adoption of new legislation/regulations (such as the Medicrime Convention)	68	21%	37%	31%	7%	4%	0%

Some participants indicated other results of the conference. For them the conference also permitted them to:

• Get an overview of the practices and legislative instruments in different MS;
• Perceive all angles of the problem and its complexity;
• Better understanding each country's involvement in the struggle;
• Raise awareness of the challenges faced and the need for multi-disciplinary co-operation;
• Facilitate future joint cross border cooperation;
• Understand how to start an investigation, with detailed examination of multi-facetted approach;
• Better understand financial aspect including money transfer, money processors, credit cards;
• Increase awareness on the need to harmonize EU medicine law, use of EU capabilities (Eurojust…) and harmonized definitions and sanctions at EU level;
• Better understand the role of each national competent authorities;
• Acknowledge the need to indentify a single point of contacts to share intelligence and information;
• Understand need for co-operation with all stakeholders (public and private sectors);
• Learn new investigations methods.
  

 

2.4 Follow-up

In terms of follow-up, the respondents favor the organization of meeting focusing on investigation methods, within the EU and outside.

 

In your opinion, what should be the follow-up of this conference?	Nbr of answers	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know
Another conference should be organised next year	66	42%	48%	13%	0%	2%	5%
A regional training on investigation techniques should be organised in Europe	67	42%	42%	9%	4%	0%	3%
Several regional trainings (investigation techniques) should be organised in selected countries	62	35%	45%	13%	0%	0%	6%
Training should benefit to authorities outside the EU	63	41%	41%	6%	0%	0%	11%
Another conference but with a specific focus (described below)	48	21%	35%	17%	2%	2%	23%
There should be no follow-up	62	10%	10%	5%	48%	24%	3%

 

 

Respondents suggested a number of topics for the next conference:

• Strengthening international cooperation through common investigation between countries. Major focus on investigations of cross-border incidents: new methods, joint operations. Importance to get the transport industry on board for worldwide investigations;
• More focus on actual case studies and the way that counterfeit medicine investigations in the field have been dealt with lessons learned. Specific focus on link between doping case and medicine trafficking;
• The specificities of criminal prosecution of counterfeiting in the EU; Counterfeiting of APIs and medical devices. Borderline products (cosmetics, food supplement, herbal products) containing API. Sharing existing programs with enforcement officers;
• Specific focus on detailed methods about Internet investigations;
• Specific focus on training of law enforcement office, especially public prosecutors, involving EUROJUST but also Frontex and EMCDDA: a conference for senior level management involving prosecutors and judges who can influence change; a conference or regional trainings for investigator and middle manager level;
  Activities performed within regulatory agencies;
• Operation PANGEA III;
• Comparison of criminal law aspects in EU MS including sanctions for counterfeiters. Focus on law harmonization and quick implementation. Working on common internet protection policy;
• Conceiving educational programs to raise awareness;
• FIU- Anti money laundering industry, anti terrorism and anti financing mechanisms;
• The CoE /EDQM experience in regional training on investigation techniques;
• Creation of a unit dedicated to fight against counterfeited medicines;
• Coordinate with training schemes organised by the CoE.

 

2.5 Organisation and logistics

 

Overall, the participants have highly appreciated the conference organisation and expressed their satisfaction not only by filling in evaluation form but also by adding several written remarks of gratitude. Many thank emails were received after the conference.

 

Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements:	Nbr of answers	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know
The administrative support of this conference (organisation/,clarity of ionstructions, badges/reimbursment) was satisfacory	69	64%	35%	1%	0%	0%	0%
The quality of the infrastructure (conference room, etc.) was satisfactory	70	54%	43%	3%	0%	0%	3%
The quality of lunches and coffee breaks were satisfactory	70	43%	47%	6%	1%	0%	3%

 

However, several improvements have been suggested:

• Internet /WI-FI connection should be available;
• The cocktail should be held at the end of the 1st day;
• Bigger plates and more efficient way of serving need to be foreseen to avoid queue;
• Lunch breaks can be shorter and the whole day less longer;
• It would be useful to have the handouts of the PPP in advance

3. Conclusions

 

The respondents expressed their satisfaction on the organisation of the Pharmacrime 2010 conference, emphasising the opportunity it offered in terms of new personal contacts at international level and comparison of investigation methods. Most of the respondents suggested a follow up in terms of training for police/customs officers and for public prosecutors.

 

 

Home : Agenda: Contact

Eucojust©2010